Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 18

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
This paper aims to present the methodological face of Polish historiography after World War II. In the centre of the Author’s interest is Marxism and its role in historians’ research practice. The article briefly mentions other methodological trends present in Polish historiography after 1956 (Annales school, individualistic historicism).
FR
Après la II-ème guerre mondiale la plupart des historiens étaient conscients de la nécéssité de transformer l’historiographie polonaise. Cela résultait d'une part de la nouvelle réalité sociale et politique et de l'autre des décisions territoriales prises à Yalta et Potsdam. L’anné 1945 a donné le commencement aux litiges et discussion sur une nouvelle forme de l'historiographie polonaise. Dans les années 1945-1951 s'est manifestée une nouvelle orientation méthodologique et hislorique. Elle était accompagnée de l'évolution de la structure d'organisation de la science historique polonaise. L'attention singulière est due aux discussions méthodologiques. Deux options méthodologiques se sont heurtées-I'une représentant les principes individualistes et l'autre s'appuyant sur la doctrine de matérialisme historique qui était fort appuyé par les milieux politiques. Fin des annès 40 et début des année 50 a été marqué par une forte offensive idéologique résultant des changements politiques. Les rédactions de principaux périodiques historiques subissent des changements; l'on a noué les contacts avec la science historique soviétique. Cela prépare le succès de l'idée historique stalinienne. Le matérialisme historique compris d'une manière dogmatique devient alors une directive méthodologique obligatoire pour la plupart des historiens. Comme exemple on peut citer le rapport de Z. Korman prononcé au I-er Congrès de Science Polonaise en juillet 1951. Les thèses du rapport en question ont été développée du rant la première conférence méthodologique des historiens polonais qui a eu lieu fin 1951 début 1952 à Otwock. Il est difficile de faire évaluer le patrimoine de l'historiographie polonaise à cette époque là. La réorientation de l'histoire de la Pologne (intérêt porté à l'histoire de la Pologne de l'ouest et du Nord), succès dans le domaine de l'histoire économique, sociale et l'histoire de l'historiographie sont accompagnés des tendencos dogmatiques du lin des années 40 et du début des années 50 - tendences qui faisaient naître de fausses interprétations de l'histoire de la Pologne.
PL
Cel artykułu stanowi przedstawienie historii Europy Środkowej/ Środkowo-Wschodniej z perspektywy historii wyobrażonej. Przedmiotem rozważań jest zakorzeniony w dyskursie publicznym, obejmującym różne teksty kultury, sposób mówienia i opowiadania o pewnym fenomenie, jakim była/ jest Europa Środkowa/ Środkowo-Wschodnia. Jako kategorie organizujące narrację przywołane zostały trzy pojęcia: geografii, historii i tożsamości. To one, zdaniem autora, składają się na swoistą triadę organizującą nasz sposób myślenia o Europie Środkowej/ Środkowo-Wschodniej.
EN
The article presents the history of Central/ Central-Eastern Europe from the perspective of imagined history. The subject of reflections is a specific phenomenon – deeply rooted in public discourse encompassing various cultural texts, ways of speaking and telling about it – in the form of Central/ Central-Eastern Europe. As categories organising the narration, three concepts are brought up: geography history, and identity. These, according to the author, make up the specific triad that coordinates our way of thinking about Central/ Central-Eastern Europe.
EN
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, historians have been increasingly interested in East-Central Europe. The purpose of the article is to analyse different ways of understanding the concept of East-Central Europe by Polish historians in exile after the Second World War. The author focuses attention mainly on the interpretations advanced by Oskar Halecki and Piotr S. Wandycz and, to a lesser degree, by Anna Cienciała and Marian K. Dziewanowski. All of these historians have been instrumental in making American historiographers see the history of the lands between Russia and Germany as distinct from Russian studies. Developed by P. S. Wandycz, the metaphor of a “laboratory where one tests different political systems” can be regarded as a fair representation of these historians’ understanding of the concept of East-Central Europe.
PL
Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia od początku XX stulecia wzbudzała coraz większe zainteresowanie historyków. Celem artykułu jest analiza różnych interpretacji historiograficznego fenomenu „Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej” rozwijanych w środowisku polskich historyków emigracyjnych po II wojnie światowej. W centrum zainteresowania autora pozostają przede wszystkim wypowiedzi Oskara Haleckiego, Piotra S. Wandycza oraz w mniejszym stopniu Anny Cienciały i Mariana K. Dziewanowskiego.
PL
Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie i analiza wieloletniej współpracy Anny M. Cienciały, jednej z czołowych postaci polskiej historiografii na uchodźstwie po 1945 r., z Jerzym Giedroyciem. Jej efekt stanowią liczne publikacje A.M. Cienciały na łamach wydawnictw Instytutu Literackiego, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem książki Polska polityka zagraniczna w latach 1926–1939. Na podstawie tekstów ministra Józefa Becka (1990). Podstawą źródłową są zbiory Archiwum Instytutu Literackiego (korespondencja między obiema postaciami). The purpose of the article is to present and analyse many years of cooperation Anna M. Cienciała, one of the leading Polish historians in exile after 1945, with Jerzy Giedroyc. It resulted in A.M. Cienciała’s numerous publications by the publisher of the Literary Institute, with special attention paid to a book Polska polityka zagraniczna w latach 1926–1939. Na podstawie tekstów ministra Józefa Becka (Polish Foreign Policy in 1926–1939, edited by Anna M. Cienciała on the Basis of Minister Józef Beck’s Texts, 1990). The study was written based on materials from the Archives of Literary Institute, where letters exchanged between Cienciała and Giedroyc are kept.
EN
An idea of Polish emigration presented in the „Syrena” („Mermaid”) was turned towards the past in the double sense of the word. Its creatore were going to continue ideas of the XIXth century emigrants, as well as, they lived in the world of their values and dilemmas, which they regarded as their own. For these after-war emigrants, history was a kind of an escape from reality which was not acceptable. Noble ideas of legality and unity of the emigration had to lose where faced to troubles of everyday life and to reality of great politics. Attempts to transmit ideas of the XIXth century emigration to second half of the XXth century were unable to be successful.
FR
Le présent article est un essai d'interprétation et en môme temps de caractéristique des publications historiques de Stanisław Cat-Mackiewicz, se référant à un de ses travaux: Stanisław August. Une courte introduction, enfermant quelques remarques sur le rôle et l'importance des recher ches dans le domaine des publications historiques et présentant la littérature objective, précède l'analyse propre du livre. La partie d'introduction contient de plus la motivation du choix de Stanisław August entant que l’exemplification la plus juste des opinions de l'auteur. L'analyse du travail de Mackiewicz a été faite sur deux plans, qui se superposent et en même temps constituent des ensembles distinctifs. Il s'agit de l’analyse des contenus historiques et politiques révélés par Stanisław August. L'nuteur charche à démontrer l'influence de la conception de l'abbé Walerian Kalinka, considéré comme le père de l’école historique cracovienne, et d'autres historiens, sur le savis de Mackiewicz. En même temps, il tâche it soul igner la spécificité et l'originalité de la conception de Mackiewicz, lui-même. On a attiré l'attention sur la polémique, qui apparaît en pages du livre, avec les opinions d’éminents historiographes polonais Szymon Askenazy et Władysław Konopczyński. Dans l'analyse du contenu et des relations politiques de Stanisław August au premier plans e met le problème de la revalorisation de l’évaluation en cours des rapports polono-russes. C'est une desidées maîtresses, un motif dominant du livre. Cette idée se lie directement avec l'évolution des opinions de l'auteur, lui même. Mackiewicz devient défenseur de bonnes relations avec la Russie ou l'Union Soviétique au nom de la raison d'état polonaise. D’où l'essai de comparer le travail de Cat avec les livres de Ksawery Pruszyński et Aleksander Bocheński. On accentue aussi le double rôle de certains arguments apparaissant au cours de la narratoin. Ils se rapportent et aux temps contemporains de Stanisław August et à ceux de l'émigration londonienne d'après guerre. Dans la partie finale l'auteur fait res sortir le problème de la réception du livre de Mackiewicz. Il discourt sur les voix des critiques littéraires apparais sant dans la presse après l'édition du livre dans le pays. Il souligne aussi l'étrangeté de la situation vu les deux éditions du livre londonienne et celle en Pologne. L'article, certes, n'épuise pas le sujet, qu'est la publication historique de Cat-Mackiewicz. L'analyse de Stanisław August devait servir d'exemplification de cette publication, montrer comment y fonctionne l'idée historique et faire voir ses conditionnements divers.
EN
The article is concerned with moral dilemmas connecting with literary and historical creation of the past. The goal is to reveal the differences between the practice of traditional historical study and telling the story. Both historiography and literature primary purpose is to understand the past. Historiography concentrates on rational motives of human activities, looks for causes and results. Historian is interested in the relationships between individual and community. Literature is less reductive, tries to discover the world of ideas and emotions of human being, explains his dreams and fears. The changes in contemporary historiography (narrative turn) offered a new vision of the past and established a new/old relationship between academic history and historical novel. Using two examples, well known books of German and Hungarian writers, dealing with Nazi and Communistic past, author try to examine what are the advantages and disadvantages of literary discourse on history.
EN
The place of the history of historiography in Topolski’s comprehensive oeuvre has not been subjected to a holistic analysis yet. I will try to highlight some of the key topics rather than propose an exhaustive interpretation of them The article concentrates on the analysis of both the notion of historiography itself, as well as interpretation the main historiographic work of the Poznan historian.
RU
Сталинизм в науке истории пытается представить идеологическую картину прошлого таким образом, чтобы могла она легитимизировать тоталитарную систему партии - государство. Сталининская модель истории как науки создана в тридцатых годах в СССР, свое соответствие нашла во всех странах так называемой народной демократии. Анализ явления сталинизации науки истории в этих странах требует ответа на вопросы: В какой степени она является копией советской модели? А в какой степени имеет она свои собственные черты в каждой из этих стран? В статье дано попытки ответить на эти вопросы на примере Польши. Автор описывает явление сталинизации в аспекте двух элементов: организационной структуры и методологических принципов. Начатая на переломе сороковых и пятидесятых годов политика сталинизации принесла новые структуры партийной науки, а также уничтожение или кризис традиционных научных учреждений. Тогда польской науке истории дано сталининскую интерпретацию теории исторического материализма. Перелом в этой политике наступил в 1953-1956 гг. Однако так называемый расчет со сталининским наследием произошел в 1956-1957 гг. и был лишь частичным и неполным. Некоторые элементы сталининской модели науки истории, несмотря на критику, остались в польской историографии до восьмидесятых годов (между прочим в несколько измененной версии) теория общественно-экономических формации.
PL
Unusual Epistolography. On the Correspondence between Stefan Kieniewicz and Henryk WereszyckiWith the passage of time letters tend to acquire the features of “unintended diaries”. This is true also in the case of the titular correspondence (Stefan Kieniewicz – Henryk Wereszycki. Korespondencja z lat 1947–1990, introduction and prepared by Elżbieta Orman, Kraków 2013). The edition is based on original letters (also rough copies) and postcards from the 1947–1990 period, kept in private collections belonging to Jan Kieniewicz, son of Stefan and also an historian, and E. Orman. A total of 397 letters is preceded by an extensive introduction by E. Orman presenting both researchers and, in chronological order, the history of their mutual contacts against the backdrop of historiography at the time of People’s Poland. The introduction is additionally supplemented with an editorial note. The volume is exceptional primarily due to its dramatis personae – the authors of the correspondence, who were not merely members of the elite of Polish historians and outstanding experts on the nineteenth century, but also special personifications of two attitudes of their milieu towards the communist authorities after 1945: a recalcitrant stand (Henryk Wereszycki, 1898–1990), often manifested by protest against the activity of the creators of the science policy in the People’s Republic of Poland, and a compromise approach, together with a search conducted despite all odds for an understanding with the authorities in the name of higher reasons, “saving the substance” (Stefan Kieniewicz, 1907–1992). Secondly, the uniqueness of the correspondence is determined by the copious information contained therein. This extremely universal source refers to at least several key questions from most recent Polish history. First and foremost, it provides new and heretofore unknown data concerning Polish historiography after the Second World War. The reader becomes acquainted as if from the inside with relations prevailing within the milieu of historians, the backstage aspects of numerous publishing initiatives, and the battles waged by both authors with censorship. Thirdly, the extraordinary character of this epistolographic legacy consists of the fact that both correspondents (particularly Wereszycki) wrote openly and attempted to avoid an Aesopian style, as if ignoring censorship, although they were well aware that the letters were not to the very end their private concern. Finally, this is a collection of sources whose authors appreciated its significance and who in their letters planned a future publication.
EN
This article is an attempt of presenting and analysing the last soviet and russian discussions on stalinism. The policy of pierestroika and glasnost started by Michail Gorbaczov released the social need of an account with the past, especially with the modern history of Russia. Both literature and film gave an inspiration for a great public discussion on Stalin and stalinism. At the begining of that quarel the historians stood aside. During the course of discussion the official definition of stalinism was thrown away. According to that previous definition, stalinism was „an overcoming an illness of socialism” . That was stated by Nikita Chruszczów in his report during the XX Meeting of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956. Then the fundamental principles and the genesis of stalinism were declared. Also the connections with the revolution of 1917 year and policy of Bolsheviks were shown. There were even some attempts of interpretation the stalinism as a such kind of psychologic phenomena. These discussions are still over. They are an evidence of a great historic reorientation of the social memory of the past. The canon of official history was thrown away and that caused the appearance of many different, even contradictory histories. In many discourses the past is treated instrumentally. Many different explanations of it show us the deep political and religious divisions in the mentality of post soviet society.
Historia@Teoria
|
2017
|
vol. 1
|
issue 3
25-36
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.